jstackpo

 More than likely, unless your bylaws are exceptional, you didn’t “assume the roll”, you ARE the President now. Congratulations! (Or my deepest sympathies, as appropriate.)

Here, if the system works, is a set of those rules. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6kg7md3bfa3389n/AACsh-KTmMA6RUlPOv6jZhcva?dl=0

did it work?

The rule (no quotes needed) is that official approval can take place only in a quorate meeting of association members.  Folks can talk,   think,  discuss, and argue all they want on their own or with each other.  

Redefine what you mean by "meeting" a little bit and RONR "fits" remarkably well...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8w31eocwqx067h/E-Meetings 2012.docx?dl=0

It is quite surprising how well a set of >150 year old rules apply to electronic communications.

Ah, the joys of doing things in a non-robertian manner. 

It is an interesting problem, however, that can be finessed or avoided if using straight e-mail as the meeting "medium".

11 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I would propose that the organization changes the bylaws to allow the amendments be brought to the conference so the membership can vote on them.

And if you do that -- a good and proper idea -- do NOT allow for e-mail votes to be made for those same motions/amendments.  See page 423, line 25ff.

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm confused reading Dr. Stackpole's answer.

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

The section of "other motions allowed" is found on page 347, lines 30-32. One of those motions is to Fix the Time To Which to Adjourn, which sets the time for a future meeting.

And well you should be as I misread the book.  Mea Culpa.

Taking apart your compound question...

1)  A meeting may be called to order even with no quorum present (and the prospect of one ever showing up unlikely) (p. 347)

but...

2)  (Almost) no business, such as postponing something, may be done at that meeting  -- exceptions on page 347 do NOT include setting a time for a future meeting, called an "adjourned meeting".

I, just to add another disparate voice, think your tellers don't know how to count.

If two ballots came back blank then only 41 votes were cast.  40 "yes"  to  1 "No"  certainly meets the "2/3 vote" requirement of the OP's strange bylaw but it looks like the total of 41 votes cast is WAAAY short of the "Majority of eligible votes cast" requirement.    The "majority of ... votes cast" is sort of equivalent to the quorum requirement of an in-person meeting.   Therefore the amendment failed because there wasn't a "quorum" "present" where the quorum is established by the "presence" of a sufficient  number of votes cast.

And yes, e-mail or other absentee voting systems do not allow for consideration of amendments.  You need a real meeting for that.

Only under VERY special circumstances  --  what are your circumstances?

Most likely the direct answer to your question is "No", if by "brought back up" you mean the same motion made and simply voted upon again.

What do the board members not understand about "If there is no objection [pause], the association will....".

7 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a piece of business that, in its execution, did in fact break the law, could ever be seen as valid 

The reasonable argument is that we parliamentarians are not lawyers, for the most part, so we have no business advising on legal matters, such as "Is this an illegal act?"  We should stick to our last and advise on procedure ("how", not "what") only.

Nope, unless there is time to do whatever notice requirements for bylaw amendments are found in your bylaws.

6 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm sure that RONR notes somewhere that the "should not" rule on voting where one has a personal interest does not apply to voting for oneself in an election.

Yes, indeed  --  immediately after the quoted citation on p. 407.   Looks like your powers of recall are still strong!

RONR (page 407) sez:

ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.

Robert, Henry M. III. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (Robert's Rules of Order (Hardcover)) (Kindle Locations 7992-7996). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

I'll leave it to you and your president to decide whether this applies to her and the chorus director position.

4 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

a powerful signal

Quite true, but it in no way  prevents a member from seeking his/her moment of glory in the spotlight.

RONR doesn't say who can (or cannot) initiate a petition, so I'd say anybody can get the ball rolling. 

But read your bylaws carefully to see if they contain "hints" about those petitions.

1 hour ago, reelsman said:

Does anyone know the maximum file size of a photo to upload?

The system told be the upper limit when I attempted to upload an (earlier) larger version -- I promptly forgot the number.  So just try it and you will learn.

Chances are that once the "something" was all paid for (well ahead of time) you could view the requirement for the remaining year of assessments as no longer valid.  The terms of the motion -- buying the "something" were met -- and the motion is therefore all finished with.

But show us the exact text of the original motion to make this, perhaps, clear. (Or make it worse -- who knows.)

2 hours ago, Father Cadan said:

c. Emergency Resolutions, the subject matter of which shall have arisen at the Convention or less than 45 days prior thereto, such as resolutions of appreciation, sympathy and condolence, shall be accepted[sic] from this rule. 

That is quoted from your reproduction of your bylaws.

What is to prevent anyone from announcing that they have an "emergency resolution" (such as yours to do something about the reserve fund) and insisting that it be dealt with, then and there?  "Such as" is pretty thin reed to hang an objection to the emergency on.

Looks like Fr. Cadan should prepare a resolution to establish a Bylaws Review Committee to straighten this mess out, in consultation with a professional parliamentarian, of course.

But he's gonna have to get the resolution in (to somebody) 45 days ahead of time....or else....

Ha!  Got it (clearly).  Thanks.

The title says it all.

RONR would say "yes" because RONR's meaning of unanimous is all who vote, vote "Yes", or if nobody objects to adoption when invited to do so -- page 54.

But your state or county rules or laws may say otherwise.  Check with your lawyer.

No.  As I said, that is what an appeal is for. The chair gets to, first, explain why he/she made the ruling.